Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

[Stanley N Salthe]

Joseph said:

>Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are
communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to
communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more
complete understanding of communication should be able to take such
complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.

S: Here, in my thinking, you are broaching the internalist / externalist
dichotomy.   Hierarchy, as I have just outlined it in a recent posting, is
a global systems model -- an externalist construction such as is used in
the natural sciences.  When you refer to a human person, you are referring
to an entirely different order of entity.  Persons peer out at the universe
from their local positions -- from inside themselves. They have no place --
as unique persons -- in systems diagrams or models like the hierarchy
models.

Bruno said:

>This thread reminds me George Bush when he said that that corporations are
persons.

S: It was the Supreme Court -- many appointed by Butch -- that said that.
 In any case, you can see from my comments above that this statement is
sheer nonsense.  Corporations are subsystems of a Corporative State (phrase
coined by Mussolini).  They are unable to vote, as such, but they can
deploy costly messages aimed at defeating politicians who are not striving
to increase their corporate power.


STAN


On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joseph Brenner wrote:

>  Dear Gordana and Loet,
>
> I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the
> hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very
> important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy" that
> have been moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner,
> countercurrently if you like. My logic gives a framework for such
> movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and
> potentialization.
>
> Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are
> communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to
> communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more
> complete understanding of communication should be able to take such
> complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.
>
> Best,
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
> *To:* Loet Leydesdorff  ; 'Stanley N 
> Salthe';
> 'fis' 
> *Cc:* Инга 
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
>
>
>  Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion (bottom-up--top-down—
> and-back-again)?
>
> Just a thought.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Gordana
>
>
> http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
>
>
> From: Loet Leydesdorff 
> Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM
> To: 'Stanley N Salthe' , 'fis' <
> fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Cc: Инга 
>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
>
>S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.)  A nice example for you
> might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse
> code.  The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to
> view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this
> example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is
> communicating, not individual persons.  It takes two positions for this
> communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so
> its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy
> principles.
>
>  I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would
> then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size
> and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals,
> isn’t it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of
> the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy?
>
>  Best,
>
> Loet
>
>   ・Inga Ivanova and Loet
> Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government
> Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and 
> Simulated.
>
>  ・Loet Leydesdorff and
> Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems:
> Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing 
> Meaning,
> *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology *(in
> press).
>
> --
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] FIS News

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS colleages,

Some new people from the Xian conference have joined our list --welcome 
to all of them. Before coming back to the ongoing discussion, let me 
briefly refer to ongoing changes in FIS organization. The _scientific 
committee_ will be enlarged to incorporate new trends, a _steering 
committee_ will be established to provide stable management, the 
_Secretariat_ will be finally in working order, and the _fis web pages_ 
reformed. The compromise is to implement these changes during coming 
months. Information Science is definitely entering a new time, and at 
FIS we need a little bit more of organization if we want to keep playing 
our role of scientific mentorship, also including matters of research, 
publishing, conferences, summer school, etc. Another related news, quite 
recent one, refers to the creation of the _Chinese Chapter of ISIS_ 
organization (& FIS). It will be integrated by the parties in Beijing, 
Wuhan, Xi'an, and other regions. At the time being it will be 
coordinated by Xueshan Yan and Liu Chang. It will be more amply 
disclosed during coming weeks.


About the ongoing discussion, why an essentially empirical work is 
reinterpreted exclusively towards the most theoretical-abstract? It is 
not quite useful. There are very cool aspects of Raquel's work that 
would benefit of comments more "having the feet on the ground". Then, 
from those further applied aspects we could connect with the 
abstract-theoretical, but with more fertility than now.  I am thinking 
particularly on Jared Diamond's work on the environmental and cultural 
conditions for the development of social complexity. Do these conditions 
dovetail with some of the mental/numerical thresholds of the type argued 
by Raquel and Jorge (and myself)? I think so.


best wishes

--Pedro

-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] response to Bruno

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi 王小红


That would lead to the human's lost of (Turing) universality, and  
would be an advantage for some higher level entity in which humans  
would be the equivalent of specialized cells. You can compare this  
with the amoeba lost of immortality and "freedom", when beginning to  
cooperate through multicellular organism.


Your views are very interesting to me, reminding me of Karl Popper's  
idea. He claims to insist on freedom alone, because he doubts that  
the coexistent of freedom and equality will be a fantasy. As you  
mentioned "amoeba", do they have "freedom", no, the only thing they  
own is equality, they have lost the intention of freedom, for they  
lost individuality.


An amoeba has more freedom in a pond than a white blood cell, which  
has a job to do in the multicellular organism. Don't take that  
"freedom" to much seriously, the image was a bit poetical.






Personally, I think humans should try to keep their Turing  
universality at all costs, but corporations will opposes naturally  
to this. The tension between universality at different levels is  
unavoidable.


Indeed, as far as army this kind of systems are concerned, the  
complete equality without individuality is required in order to keep  
each soldier  in step effectively when in emergent and dangerous  
situation.


In the army, OK. in the civil society, in time of peace: we should  
avoid that, and encourage people to be themselves and develop their  
differences, that means exploiting their own universality. I think.



Best,

Bruno




___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis